alt - Alternate Overboard

EDIÇÃO COLÔNIA CECÍLIA
"A Colônia Cecília foi uma experiência anarquista realizada no Paraná, entre 1890 e 1894. A comunidade reuniu principalmente imigrantes italianos e, em seu auge, chegou a abrigar 250 habitantes."
O covil dos webcomunas no Brasil
Último fio: >>16404

Which tendencies of ML (there has to be at least one) uphold the pre-Dimitrov, R. Palme Dutt -esque, 1920s COMINTERN (multiple congresses) consensus on the United Front tactic, as opposed to the Popular Front (in my analysis) error?

After finally reading some of Hoxha's works I was greatly disappointed to find that he doesn't even have the integrity to acknowledge Stalin's flip flop from completely contradictory tactics, pretending like the Popular Front is the only thing there ever was and is correct without no need to explain further.

the Chinese revolution being the result of a mix of directives, and ending up in a partially synthesized United + Popular Front, at least leads to some interesting (but ultimately non-conclusive imo) discourse in some Maoist circles on the topic.

Then there's the funny thing about people thinking Bordigist leftcoms are odd for supporting the United Front from Below, or that it's an ultraleft tactic entirely. Meanwhile the fact is that it's the instance where leftcoms get as Leninist, sharing position with Stalin-era CPSU, as they can get.

TL;DR: If Dengists, Khrushchevites and Hoxhaists aren't United Front from Below stans, which MLs are? Non-answer is unacceptable and will require you to do 10 jumping jacks on a floor I multiple bags of pebbles on

is smoking weed praxis? do you think Marx would've smoked weed?

No encontré el hilo anterior así que hago uno nuevo porque es necesario

que con todo y todo Estados Unidos no ha parado de intentar meter las narices en el país y me esta empezando a cansar y mas si en el 2030 planean poner otro titere de mierda en especial si es el puto de Salinas Pliego que planea ser literalmente un Milei Whitexican.

Alguien seguia la campaña de Manzo?
Que opinan de Morena en pleno 2025?
Que nos queda por hacer?

then they use it as a pretext to invade the whole world because they haven't legalized it yet.
Not legal in the wholesome gay nation of Israel either but that doesn't stop them from massacring "people in the name of love" to spread it.

Figured I made a thread to share our romantic experiences – or lack of thereof, – opinions, wishes and advice. That is part of the whole LGBT experience besides the sex and gender.

I reached mid 20s with barely any experience, autism made sure of that. Kissed a drunk lesbian once, I don't even think I looked that cute for a guy in his 20s, so I was honored more than anything. Broke up a friendship with a trans girl after some hasty choices, but she was crazy anyways. Now focusing on friends, making and deepening them.

Wish I had a man I understood and was understood by, someone light-hearted and whimsical to have fun with on the short time I have here on Earth. Femboy-ish ig, not masculine, but takes care of himself, with a touch of femininity to him. Impartial on sex, willing to do it, might be fun even.

One thing I like is the idea of relations as temporary, serial monogamy if you will. I'm all for loyalty while in a relation, but that doesn't necessarily mean it must be forever and ever. People change, why shouldn't their relations? Admittedly I do see the romance in a lifelong relation, sticking with someone and changing together with them. Besides looking for a new partner every x amount of years sounds exhausting.

how the drug war blinds us to lifesaving medicine
A relative of mine recently visited an emergency room complaining of severe depression. Did they offer her something that would cheer her up right then and there? Did they offer her a free 'trip' on the kind of medicine that had inspired the Hindu religion or that was used in ancient Greek ritual? Did they offer her laughing gas that makes people experience heaven itself? Of course not. That would not be scientific. Instead, they started her on a long-term dependence-causing treatment on Big Pharma 1 2 anti-depressants - and crossed their fingers that she would not commit suicide while waiting for the drugs to begin altering her personality and numbing her pain. The working assumption here seems to be that suicide itself is better than 'drug use,' as that term is hypocritically and unscientifically defined by racist demagogue politicians.

I despair of convincing brainwashed Americans of the many ways that potentially addictive drugs could be used safely to end depression as part of a wide variety of psychologically common-sense protocols that smart people have not even dared to imagine yet. Drug war propaganda has too thoroughly frightened them into believing that human imagination can never find ways to use drugs safely, that we are eternally gullible children with respect to psychoactive medicine. But the pharmacological work of Alexander Shulgin reveals that there exists a potentially endless list of phenethylamines that could elate and inspire without even theoretically causing addiction in the user3. This should be good news to Americans, given that their safety standard for drug use is so much higher than that for any other risky activity on the face of the globe. In this essay, therefore, I will cite qualitative testimony from Shulgin about the mood-elevating benefits of phenethylamines, thereby tacitly demonstrating the inhumanity implicit in denying such medicines to the severely depressed, as we do today, apparently on the fanatical assumption that suicide itself is better than using drugs to elevate mood.

My goal is to wake the reader up to the obvious: namely, that suicide is a big problem today only because we have made it so as a society with the superstitious Drug War ideology of substance demonization.

Here is what Shulgin writes about his experience with Pikhal drug #2:

'I moved into the creative, free-flowing kind of repertoire which I dearly love, aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

As I am feeling depressed and lazy this morning thanks to drug prohibition, I have decided to write today's essay in the form of disparate notes on the ENORMOUSLY FRAUGHT subject of drugs and drug use in the modern world.

THE PROFIT-DRIVEN MISDIAGNOSIS OF ADDICTION

The Drug War mentality of substance demonization leads us to misdiagnose the unhappy drug user as the victim of a neurological disease called addiction. This is just the self-serving way that materialists sidestep the obvious facts of the case so as to position themselves as the well-remunerated experts on mind and mood medicine. In reality, the so-called addictive personality types are just human beings who are desperately searching for a way to feel comfortable in their own skin. They simply wish to be able to sleep at night and to appreciate the world around them. They simply wish to live a meaningful life. This desire on their part is not a medical pathology, and the real experts in such cases are not medical doctors! The real experts in such cases are the same people whom they have always been throughout the course of human history: namely, those highly empathic human beings whom we have variously denominated as priests, counselors, shaman and sages.

To be sure, such experts in our time would ideally have an extensive knowledge of biochemistry and pharmacology, but their most important qualification would be what it has always been for such experts: their ability to listen to a suffering human being and to guide them empathically on a quest for specific problem-solving protocols as suggested by real cases in the real world. Such experts would be able to suggest a wide variety of drug-aided protocols based on actual user experiences in a world wherein we actually sought to profit from the vast and so-far largely untapped treasure trove of psychoactive substances with which we have always been surrounded as biochemically activated human beings – those substances which, caveman like, we moderns have so far sought to demonize rather than to use as wisely as possible (alone or in combination) for the benefit of a suffering humanity.

This is why drug prohibition is such tyrannical folly. People in a secular society are always going to be searching for peace of mind – and a War on Drugs is all about ensuring that their search will end in disaster – thanks to a lack of education, a lack of regulated drug supply, and a lack of true and informed dPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The reader who believes that I am desperately in favor of "drug use" is wrong. I am desperately in favor only of complete honesty about drugs whereby intelligent persons may make intelligent decisions about using (or abstaining from) any given substance – complete honesty, that is to say, about ALL drugs, including everything from Ketamine to SSRIs, from LSD to alcohol, from opium to tobacco. This honesty that I'm after would be based not on wish fulfillment or eye-catching one-off anecdotes, but rather on actual outcomes of actual use patterns, telling potential users in effect, "If you use substance A in this way, then X is statistically likely to happen, if you use it in THAT way, then Y," with such reports focusing both on the reported subjective AND objective benefits and downsides of use. My urgency derives from the fact that there is no such drug honesty in the United States. Instead, users must decide for themselves precisely how much of Drug Warrior bluster, overstatement and factual cherry-picking should justifiably discourage them in their particular use of a particular substance.

That said, it is emphatically not just the Drug War which is to blame for this lack of honesty about drugs in America. There is another force at work in American society that limits our understanding about so-called "drugs" and that is what I call the sanctification effect. It is a descendant of the American penchant for medicine shows in the 19th-century, wherein an authority figure (generally decked out as a "doctor") convinced a desperate audience that a bottle of "Dr. Good" would cure everything that ailed them and without any untoward side effects whatsoever. This sanctification effect appears whenever capitalism 1 (or more specifically the entrepreneurial spirit) works to promote an unnuanced and glorified understanding of a psychoactive substance in order to peddle that substance to an often desperate clientele. Such a drug soon becomes beatified in the minds of its champions, who are thenceforth averse to even contemplating facts that might conduce to removing said substance from the pedestal that has been fashioned for it, often through a powerful combination of wishful crowd-think and the conscious sales strategy of ambitious entrepreneurs.

This tendency to sanctify is understandable as a reaction to the omnipresence of Drug War lies and misinformation in American society. It's especially understandable in those who believe as I dPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

I have yet to read or hear anyone in the 21st century speak honestly and rationally about drugs. Even the card-carrying enemies of the Drug War are under the spell of at least one Drug War lie, and they are usually mentally hobbled by a whole series of false Drug War assumptions. If nothing else, they accept the Drug War lie that "substances" are problems when the only real problems (as everyone knew before 1914) is a lack of education, violence-producing prohibition, and laws that are specifically written to target a bigoted politician's enemies. In the old days, these were poll taxes. In more recent times, these are drug laws.

Here's another lie to which even critics of the Drug War succumb. They speak as if this thing they call "sobriety" is the ne plus ultra of moral conditions. But that's just a Christian Science supposition, not a scientific fact. What's so great about sobriety, after all? Sobriety often kills. Why? Because the sober mind is often depressed, angry, in despair, caught up in a vicious circle of dis-empowering and defeatist self-talk.

Yes, many so-called "drug" users do want to escape reality… but there is a good reason for that. Their self-talk was making them unable to assert themselves in the world and maximize their self-actualization. You don't solve that problem by insisting that sobriety is somehow a goal in and of itself!

Let's say that my mental self-talk keeps me from enjoying life, to the point where I can't do my job, can't make money, etc. And so I try an illicit substance and go in for counseling. Suddenly, the idiotic assumption of my caregivers is that I need to become "sober." But that is nonsense. It is sobriety itself that led to my downfall. I need help from an empath who is empowered to use a wide variety of psychoactive plant medicine to help me think outside the murderous box of my self-doubts and depression. I don't need lectures about the sanctity of sobriety in the abstract.

But the modern Drug Warrior has this absurd idea that if I would only become "sober," I would be fine.

This is why illicit drug use in Drug War America makes perfect sense. What's the alternative for those suffering self-doubt? The alternative is either to become a lifelong ward of the healthcare state, hooked on the limited pharmacopoeia of psychiatry's disgraceful pill mill 1 , which tamps down emotions rather than empowering self-actualization – or simply to become "sober," notwitPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Exposing the anti-patient drug-war lobby in Washington

The DEA is the enemy of depressed individuals worldwide because it has blocked the research (let alone the use) of godsend antidepressant medications now for over four decades. Technically, it has only done this in America, but Drug War colonialism has spread this anti-scientific policy worldwide, as America financially blackmails its trading partners into touting the anti-patient party line about so-called drugs.

MDMA 1 was legal in 1984 and ready to treat soldiers with PTSD. However, in 1985, the DEA acted against the advice of its own regulatory judge and criminalized the substance. The result: American soldiers have been without a godsend medication for PTSD during the last three and a half decades, during their fight with al-Qaida and the Taliban. While our forces were living through hell overseas, the DEA was hunkering down in its comfy Washington offices, determined to keep its jobs at any cost, even at the expense of soldiers' lives and well-being. Meanwhile, psychedelics (such as ayahuasca, psilocybin, and ibogaine) which showed profound potential for virtually curing alcoholism in the '50s, have been listed by the DEA as schedule I drugs since the DEA's inception (based purely on politics, not on science) ensuring that the depressed must continue to rely on Big Pharma meds that create chemical dependence.


But the DEA is not the only group that's determined to keep valuable medications from those who need them. To figure out who else is anti-patient in this way, just ask yourself: who stands to lose money if the Drug War is finally terminated? A partial list of such groups follows. Those who oppose America's anti-patient Drug War would do well to monitor the political advocacy of these groups who have a vested interest in the ongoing arrest of minorities for mere possession of Mother Nature's plants and fungi:

WHO'S KEEPING THE DRUG WAR GOING?

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

GROUPS THAT PROSPER FINANCIALLY FROM THE DRUG WAR:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

A remedial course on drug benefits for medical ethicists and healthcare majors

Every time I read about drug benefits, I am stunned anew at the world in which we live today: a world in which our experts on healthcare and ethics profess to see no connection between the subject of assisted suicide for the depressed and the fact that our society has outlawed all substances that inspire and elate. And so now the state that refuses to let you use drugs to cheer yourself up will help you use drugs to kill yourself. How can our best and brightest tell me that they see no irony here?! I have written many "experts" on this subject and I have been ghosted by most. But the worst cases are when they actually answer me, because the few who do so are gaslighting me, even if they do not realize it themselves.

The only way that our "experts" can honestly disagree with me on this subject is if they really do not believe that there are indeed drugs out there that have the potential of which I speak, the potential to inspire and elate. But it never occurred to me that folks with master's degrees could be both that unworldly and that uninformed. It never occurred to me that they could be so totally uneducated when it comes to pharmacology, ethnobotany, "drug literature," the history of drug use, and just plain common sense. Even a five-year-old child can see how laughing gas could have beneficial uses for the suicidal! Why are our experts so dense on these topics?

Sensing a need for remedial education here, I have taken the liberty of providing a few relevant quotes from Aleister Crowley below about the potential benefits of cocaine, the drug that our experts love to hate. Each snippet is followed by an annotation by yours truly serving to underscore and expand upon the take-away message to be gleaned by the conscientious reader. By the time our experts get through reading these, they should be smarter than a five-year-old child – and if not, I'll give them a free lollipop as a consolation prize.

Quotes from Aleister Crowley
“The depression lifted from my mind like the sun coming out of the clouds.“

This is what the depressed World War I vet discovered after his first use of cocaine in "Diary of a Drug Fiend." And yet America's "experts" on ethics and health are discussing assisted suicide for the depressed without mentioning the fact that such drugs exist. It's insanity with a body count! See my multiple essays on this toPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

helo gamers, i invite u to a fuckin autismic political minecraft server u should come play. we are running factions on 1.21.11 and have a plugin that lets you pick up and throw people. teh texture pack is meant to represent autists across the political spectrum btw.

BILLIONS must play

featuring the dangerously misinformed viewpoints of the Atlantic's Graeme Wood

The following is my response to an article in the July 2019 Atlantic magazine entitled The Life-Changing Magic of Tripping by Graeme Wood. Wood's article is written as a kind of homage to drug policy analyst Mark Kleiman, who recently died from complications of a kidney transplant. But don't let the title of the article fool you: It turns out that both Kleiman and Wood argue so feebly in favor of drug law liberalization that a supporter of that goal would almost wish they would keep quiet, rather than yielding so much ground to the Drug Warrior with their implicit but mistaken assumptions about the origins and solutions of that problem.


Graeme Wood's article is instructive, however, because it clearly shows how liberal Americans have been completely bamboozled by the half-baked logic of America's Drug War. One doesn't know where to start in disabusing Graeme and Kleiman of their pious Drug War verities, but here goes:

1) Graeme says that, "Kleiman thought certain hallucinogens should be legalized, ever so carefully."

Ever so carefully? We're talking about naturally growing substances that appear unbidden at our very feet, substances that had been legal as a matter of course until 1914, substances that were criminalized because of racist ideas about the populations that used them – and in Nixon's case to punish his enemies (by making them felons, thereby removing them from the voting rolls).

Yet we need to regain these freedoms "ever so carefully"?

Why do we concede the right of government to criminalize naturally occurring substances in the first place? They have no such right, particularly in a country that grants its citizens "the right to pursue happiness," happiness which psychoactive plant medicines have been shown to provide or at least to facilitate.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

I seldom try to refute critics in long-form because they're usually so wrongheaded that I feel a single reply tweet of mine can demolish their feeble pretentions to truth, at least when the subject is drug prohibition and its endless downsides. But occasionally I get some pushback that calls for a little more effort on my part.

Author's follow-up for October 29, 2025

Take Frank S., for instance. I maintain that "addiction" is a problematic and political diagnosis because it ignores the fact that prohibition helps cause addiction. But Frank S. demurs. He tells me that we often make diagnoses without regard for one's personal life, their lack of education, lack of food, etc. So why should we not label a problem user as an "addict" without regard for the existence of a Drug War?

My answer is as follows:

The fact that we fail to highlight things such as poor diet and poor education in our diagnoses should be seen as a shortcoming of the whole categorization system of the west, rather than an excuse to add drug prohibition to the list of causes that we already ignore. If huge problems are being caused, say, by poor diet, it would be misleading to diagnose the starving with all sorts of maladies attendant upon malnutrition – depression, fatigue, and so forth - without simultaneously stressing the outsize role that malnutrition played in causing those subsequent disorders. If we simply label all victims of a lack of food as depressed and anxious, etc. - however true those diagnoses may be "in and of themselves" – we are helping to divert attention from tragically bad social policies. This is the whole thesis of Ivan Illich's book "Medical Nemesis," in which he shows how medical diagnoses help to justify and normalize bad social policies and, indeed, the failures of the capitalist system as a whole.

But diagnosing someone as an "addict" without referencing prohibition is especially problematic. This is so because "addict" is a wildly subjective term as used in Drug War America. As Richard L. Miller writes in Drug Warriors and Their Prey:

'As used by politicians and law-enforcement agencies today, the term "addict" often becomes synonymous with… a person who has had only one or two contacts with the substance.'

In fact, the term "addiction" is subjective, even as it is defined in Webster's Dictionary:
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Come and visit this thread! Users of leftypol, siberia, for the 420chan Culture Museum.
Here you can see an array of ancient and modern screenshots, that stem from the wonderful civilization of narcomania that inhabited the place once known as 420chan, a place that is promised to return one day.
Our unique collection of historical screenshots tells the story of human relations with psychoactive substances.

[WARNING: Some screenshots might contain NSFW content, viewer discretion is advised.]

How pseudoscientists pretend that the drug war does not exist


When Galileo was censored by the church in 1633 for his heliocentric views on astronomy, he knew he was censored. The Chief Inquisitor, Father Vincenzo Maculani, left no doubt about that. Not only was Galileo sentenced to house arrest, but many of his writings were banned and he had to publicly renounce his ecclesiastically incorrect views. He was even forced to recite The Seven Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.FN0054 (That'll teach him!)

His fate has since become a cause célèbre for scientists everywhere, who bristle at modern-day restrictions on their own research, always with this 17th-century backstory in mind. "Never again" seems to be their motto as they scoff at the benighted clerics of the past.

What they fail to realize, however, is that science today is censored every bit as much as it was censored in Galileo's time. In fact, today's censorship is worse because it is self-censorship on behalf of an ideology: namely, the ideology of the Drug War, which tells us that most psychoactive substances have no positive uses whatsoever, not for anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason, at any dose, ever. The fact is, of course, that there are no such substances in the world. To say otherwise is to ignore both science and history. Even cyanide has positive uses. Moreover, some of the medicines that we're talking about here (like Soma, coca and ayahuasca) have inspired entire religions. How can they not be without reasonable uses?

Meanwhile, psychedelic medicines can increase neuronal connectivity and even grow new neurons in the brain, but scientists are highly discouraged from following up such leads, since the outlawing of such substances scares away most potential research funders, including the government itself. But the Drug Warrior's claim that psychoactive substances have no good uses is a self-fulfilling prophecy, for Drug War prohibition keeps scientists from looking for the very positive uses which the Drug Warrior has told us do not exist.

For some concrete examples of how scientists ignore the Drug War, consider the following articles about the mind from Science News. None of these articles even mention the existence of the Drug War, let alone the fact that it outlaws hundreds of psychoactive medicines whose considered use could change the very way that we think about the brain and consciousness. These articles are tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The modern "addiction experts" like Gabriel Mate, refer almost all "addiction" to inner pain, but in doing so, they reckon without the Drug War. To pronounce authoritatively on the cause of addiction in the age of the Drug War is like pronouncing authoritatively on the cause of headaches in an age when aspirin is banned. In each case, the entire problem would be seen in a very different light if prohibition were not in force.

To see this more clearly, let's imagine a world that has never existed before on Planet Earth: one in which pharmacologically savvy empaths are free to use any psychoactive medicine in the world to treat (or rather "work with") clients. I say "clients" advisedly, for in such a world, the very concept of psychiatric patient would be eliminated as folks who are fighting depression access the same empath used by folks who want to increase their appreciation of music, or their appreciation of Mother Nature, or who just want to brainstorm positive ideas with the empath while using a pharmacological substance designed to encourage sharing and openness.

In such a world, a friendly competition would naturally develop between empaths to see who can treat problems like "addiction" most successfully, not by persuading the client to become sober – which has been the Christian Science goal of all addiction therapy to date – but rather by working with the client to get them ON those substances that they can use least problematically while yet being able to maximize their human potential in life.

Not only would the empathy have access to all psychoactive medicines, but he or she would be able to leverage the power of human anticipation in bringing about positive results. It's a well known fact that one feels better overall when they have something specific to look forward to. This new form of psychiatry could finally acknowledge this common sense fact and take advantage of it by providing intermittent relaxation sessions, in which groups are provided with substances that give them a vacation from negative introspection and petty fears. Moreover, this therapy could be provided on a non-addictive basis, either by using non-habit-forming substances or by using potentially addictive medicines intermittently, perhaps without even informing the clients of the exact ingredients of the nostrums thus employed (thereby obviating any potential for a group member to seek out a substance for regular use).

Suddenly,Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Public attention has been riveted by the harm addicts cause themselves
and those around them, more in the last few years than ever before. And
the way we view addiction is changing, moulting, and perhaps advancing
at the same time. We’ve begun to separate our ideas about addiction from
assumptions about moral failings. We’re less likely to dismiss addicts as
simply indulgent, spineless, lacking in willpower. It becomes harder to
relegate addiction to the down-and-outers, the gaunt-faced youths who
shuffle toward our cars at traffic lights. We see that addiction can spring
up in anyone’s backyard. It attacks our politicians, our entertainers, our
relatives, and often ourselves. It’s become ubiquitous, expectable, like air
pollution and cancer.
To explain addiction seems more important than ever before. And
the first explanation that occurs to most people is that addiction is a
disease. What else but a disease could strike anyone at any time, robbing
them of their well-being, their self-control, and even their lives? Many
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Are you excited about anything game's related lately?
games, mods, etc.

2026-2027 as long as it hasn't been released and it's keeping you on your toes you can post it here.
body isn't too short nor empty

One reason why Drug War prohibition has lasted now over 100 years is the fact that otherwise sensible Americans have yielded to the temptation to medicalize and moralize the so-called 'addiction problem,' turning it into the symptom of some existential crisis.

These well-intentioned gambit fails to recognize the fact that the term 'addiction' is merely a political concept in a country that embraces the hypocritical moral standards of the Drug War. As Thomas Szasz pointed out in his 1974 ground-breaking book entitled 'Ceremonial Chemistry', President John F. Kennedy and his wife regularly used amphetamines during the early '60s, courtesy of Dr. Max Jacobson, in order to keep them fresh for their whirlwind schedules, yet they were never considered addicts. They were just taking a medication, don't you see? Meanwhile, had the no-name poor indulged in a similar habit, they would have been instantly labeled as addicts, thrown into jail, subjected to moralizing counseling sessions (in which folks like Gabriel Maté would have searched for their 'inner pain'), and been sent to 12-step programs to be reminded how helpless they were in the face of powerful chemical substances. Meanwhile, the poor people's 'pusher' would have been thrown in jail and labeled as 'vermin,' the same term that the NAZIs reserved for Jews and homosexuals.

The Drug War in fact invented the idea of the morally flawed addict. Before 1914, regular opium users were described as habitués. After the Harrison Narcotics Act, they were referred to with the judgmental term 'addicts.' (The few well-known folks who obviously overused opium in 1800s Britain were laughed at, not considered a dire threat to the social fabric of the UK, this despite the fact that in some counties, virtually every household had laudanum on hand to treat things like colds, sleeplessness and bouts of depression.)

If these examples do not convince the reader that the term 'addiction' is a political term, consider the fact that the great addiction crisis of our time does not even qualify as an addiction in the minds of most psychiatrists today. One in 4 American women and 1 in 8 American men are addicted to Big Pharma antidepressants 1, many of which are harder to kick than heroin, but psychiatrists refuse to even call this an addiction, nor even to condemn it using the pedantic equivocation of 'chemical dependency.' To do so would kill the golden goose of the psychiatric pill mill, both for psychiatrPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Have you ever wondered why some drugs are 'prohibited' whereas alcohol and tobacco (the two most dangerous drugs in existence) are freely available? The explanation is simple: the so-called 'War on Drugs' is not in any way related to preventing and reducing substance-related harm. It is solely an economic system based on intentionally-created crime. The crime consists merely of an association with drugs other than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. What we know as the 'War on Drugs' was devised prior to a US presidential election in the early 1970s and its worldwide application is enforced with the assistance of the United Nations. This system of intentionally-created crime results in mass imprisonment, fining, unregulated manufacture of substances, execution, wars and many other circumstances which collectively constitute a gross worldwide human-rights abuse.

A disturbingly large proportion of the world's population mistakenly believe that the strategy is related to preventing and reducing substance-related harm. This is how the atrocity is deceptively portrayed by politicians and others benefiting from it. People remain largely ignorant of its true nature: an economic system based on intentionally-created crime utilising a criminalised majority as the resource to be exploited. It constitutes possibly the greatest political fraud in modern history.

The abhorrence of what has been happening worldwide for over fifty years cannot be understated.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (with the assistance of the UNITED NATIONS) AND THE ENFORCING OF A CATASTROPHIC AND BRUTAL REGIME ON THE ENTIRE WORLD.

The US has introduced and enforced a worldwide environment of intentionally-created crime on the entire world under the deceptive guise of protecting health and welfare.
Since the early 1970s the US has prosecuted and enforced a policy based on a deception that creates a world-wide environment of intentionally-created crime. This involves mass imprisonment, fining, asset forfeiture, execution, wars, corruption and the trampling of human rights etc in order to facilitate financial gain and political advantage.
MODERN DAY BRUTALITY ON A WORLDWIDE SCALE
The policy (the so-called 'War on Drugs') is built on a gross deception: that drugs other than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine comprise a unique group of substances that present an unacceptable risk to health and welfare. This is wholly incorrect: alcohol Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

What the drug war tells us about American capitalism
why drug warriors should quit while they're behind

If prohibitionists knew what was good for them, they would give up while they were behind when it comes to the War on Drugs. By persevering in their city-destroying policy of drug prohibition, they are inadvertently reminding Americans like myself of the shortcomings of modern capitalism. Whenever a minority young person is killed in a "no-go" zone created by drug prohibition1, whenever the DEA confiscates a property based on the trace presence of a time-honored medicine2, whenever a fascist takes office thanks to the Drug War's mass incarceration 3 of minorities4, we are seeing proof that unbridled capitalism has failed, at least as an economic system that meets the needs of a freedom-loving people. Why? Because any economic system that so easily accommodates the destruction of so many basic democratic freedoms must eventually come to be considered as fundamentally flawed by all serious thinkers, at least the few who still actually believe in the concept of truth as something other than a politically created mirage.


Although I have resided on planet earth for 67 years now, it never occurred to me to criticize capitalism until I began philosophically analyzing drug prohibition seven years ago. In the course of my investigations on this topic, I discovered that the Drug War is supported by the full-court press of incessant propaganda, especially in the form of the ruthless censorship of all beneficial effects of drugs and all harmful effects of drug prohibition. It was just a matter of time before I would come to connect this discovery with the following inconvenient truth: that American capitalism itself DEPENDS on propaganda: it depends on the willful manipulation of consumer viewpoints in such a way as to align them with the financial interests of billionaires. American capitalism is custom-made to support the fearmongering campaigns of billionaires.

This alerted me, in turn, to the existence of a meta problem in America, a problem more fundamental than drug prohibition itself: the fact that Americans are being programmed by the billionaires in our capitalist society into "feeling" a certain way about the world – and a certain hypocritical way at that when it comes to drugs. Americans have no problems with Jim Beam Bourbon advertisements that target young people on prime-time television and yet they support thePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Drug Warriors are the Problem, not Drug Dealers

I have always tried not to impose my minority views on others when it comes to the Drug War and substance prohibition and to express my concerns instead in the form of impersonal online essays. My hope is that these essays may one day find an audience that will understand them and perhaps even profit from them. I am increasingly unsure, however, whether this reticence on my part represents cowardice or tact, especially since America's drug policy outlaws all sorts of psychoactive drugs which, alone or in combination, could prevent suicide, fight Alzheimer's, help autistic children, prevent school shootings, and fight weight gain. When such subjects come up in friendly discussion, I generally decide to hold my tongue. I do not want to rock the boat and create hard feelings. In any case, the law is the law, no matter how unjust it may be, and so my insights on such topics may not suggest any immediate applications for law-abiding citizens, but it does seem to me that someone should be recognizing the 6,000-pound gorilla in the room called "drug prohibition" rather than pretending that drug law places no limits on our choices in life. After all, the racist Drug War will never end if we never hold it responsible for the evils that it causes by outlawing godsend medicine.
Saying things like 'Fentanyl kills' is philosophically equivalent to saying 'Fire bad'. Both statements would have us fear dangerous substances rather than to learn how to use them wisely for the benefit of human beings.

Of course, the DEA will join with religious conservatives in telling us that most psychoactive medicines have no positive uses whatsoever, but such conclusions can only be based on the western materialist prejudice that drug efficacy has to be established by looking under a microscope rather than by paying attention to how human beings actually think and feel in the world. This behaviorist approach to mind and mood medicine represents a kind of pharmacological colonialism. Moreover it leads to absurd results, like the inability of modern doctors in the FDA to "sign off" on the use of laughing gas for the severely depressed - laughing gas ! – while, at the same time, this same FDA actually promotes the use of brain-damaging shock therapy! They promote it! As Whitehead says, we should discard a philosophy that leads to absurd results, and these results are absurd in the extreme: Drug War ideology leads uPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The prohibitionist approach to drug use is based on the following hateful and anti-democratic algorithm: namely, that a drug that can be misused, even in theory, by a white American young person when taken at one dose for one reason must not be used by anybody at any dose for any reason. This is Big Mother government at its worst. And yet, even if we made our peace with this childish and immensely disempowering algorithm, the Drug War would still be a case of massive tyrannical overreach. Consider our laws against coca. America does not just outlaw the godsend known as cocaine, but it outlaws the coca leaf itself since it could theoretically be used to manufacture cocaine. WHAT?! One may as well outlaw planes, trains, boats and automobiles because they could theoretically be used to carry coca leaves around the world.

Sounds crazy at first, right? Americans would never do that, right? But then prohibitionists have done something even more tyrannical than that: they have effectively repealed basic freedoms like the 1st and 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on the grounds that such democratic freedoms will impede the government's war against the use of drugs like cocaine. And so the Drug War is used as an excuse to end democracy itself! The fact that most Americans have gladly acquiesced in this anti-democratic outrage is depressing, to put it mildly.

I find it extremely depressing to write on this subject, by the way, because in researching the topic online, I encounter nothing but articles written by brainwashed drug haters, authors who have been thoroughly bamboozled since grade school by the Drug War ideology of substance demonization. Such authors make frequent and uncritical use of pejorative terms like "scourge" and "craze" when discussing cocaine – in complete lockstep with our government's drug-demonizing imperative. The real "craze" over the last 150 years, however, was not our understandable fascination with the almost miraculous cocaine of the Inca – a drug whose invigorating and hangover-free effects seem to violate the first law of thermodynamics – it was the strategic attempt on the part of racist politicians and Chicken Little moralizers to demonize that substance by focusing on its misuse only. (Note: It was originally doctors who demonized cocaine 1 . They completely ignored the benefits of the drug – which was, of course, the whole point. Cocaine could have rendered psychiatry unnecessary for Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Faithful readers of this site, should there be such, will have discovered that I have little patience with the many drug pundits who drastically underestimate the downsides of drug prohibition – and that means just about everybody these days, rock-star authors included (like Michael Pollan 1 and Rick Strassman 2 , for just two of many examples). Some of the very leaders in the drug-law reform movement still believe in the propriety of the demonstrably deadly policy of drug prohibition. Even those who favor the re-legalization of psychoactive medicine fail to appreciate the full evil of drug prohibition. This is because, like the Drug Warriors themselves, they never think of the hundreds of millions of people who go without godsend medicines thanks to our lopsided focus on the well-being of our apparently poor, defenseless white children, whom we refuse to educate about drugs. They never think of the children in hospice 3 4 who go without morphine 5 thanks to the demonizing of that drug. They never think of the minority communities around the globe that have been devastated by the gun violence brought about by drug prohibition. 6


Bill Clinton's attitude 7 , for instance, seems to have been the following: If the prohibition of cocaine could save his brother Roger from himself, then who cares about the hundreds of millions of depressed who will have to go without a panacea and will thereby be shunted off onto Big Pharma drugs that are harder to kick than heroin? 8 Who cares about the young people in inner cities who will be mowed down by the gun violence created by drug prohibition? 9 Who cares about the end of the rule of law in Latin America? 10 Who cares about the abrogation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution? 11 Who cares that the police can now confiscate entire estates based on the discovery of one illegal drug on-site – even if the owner of the property had nothing to do with placing that drug there? 12 Who cares if prohibition throws enough minorities in jail to ensure the election of a fascist? 13 14

This is why the Drug War is inherently imperialistic. Americans want to make their own personal world safe by outsourcing despair and death to disempowered communities around the globe. It is crass immorality.

If Bill wanted to save his brother, he would have outlawed liquor and guns – and hang-gliding and javelin throwing, for that matter. Instead, he hypocritically limited his actions on behalfPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

How depressed Americans blame themselves for the problems caused by drug prohibition


It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to separate my philosophical life from my casual life with friends. That is because, unbeknownst to themselves, the latter keep saying and doing things that tragically illustrate the problems with drug prohibition. I am thinking especially of the increasing number of my friends who are "coming out" as being depressed. They always do so in a predictable fashion, by making a somewhat lengthy tell-all speech, either in person or by mail, in which they confess to having been depressed for a long time now and to having even contemplated suicide, reporting however that they have finally seen the light. They now see that they are sick and that they need help. They speak of their determination to join a variety of self-help groups and report that they have already visited a psychiatrist, from whom they have received an antidepressant which they trust will help them correct their recalcitrant biochemistry and so make them comfortable once again in their own skin. They thank us for our time and our understanding and invite our advice and suggestions on upbeat protocols moving forward. They then sit back, as it were, in expectation of the compassion and reassurance that such an intimate confession must necessarily elicit from all but the most callous of hearts.

Such avowals place me in a very awkward position. Should I attempt to give this naive sufferer "the big picture" regarding his or her situation – should I tell them how cocaine is a godsend for depression1 and how medical doctors helped outlaw the drug for obvious self-interested reasons2 – or should I just make with the expected back-patting while perhaps adding a few reciprocal confessions of my own in order to break the ice, which might be imagined to be quite thick after such confessions, especially if both confessor and penitent are of the masculine sex. Even if I decide to be honest, it is not clear what advice I should give in the age of the Drug War. Should I be troubled by the idea that my friend has committed to the use of a drug that will likely turn him or her into a patient for life? or should I let that decision go unchallenged in recognition of the fact that Big Pharma drugs, however problematic and inadequate they may be, are the only game in town when it comes to pharmacological relief in the age of drug prohibition? That latter dePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

I do not think there is any American on Earth who adequately appreciates the extent to which they have been brainwashed about drugs. Not only have they been protected by the media from all positive reports of drug use, but almost every movie and television show that they watch spreads anti-drug propaganda in a subtle and therefore insidious manner. I realized this latter fact this weekend after watching three more-or-less randomly chosen movies with my nephew and brother-in-law. None of these movies revolved around the topic of drugs, but each implicitly promoted the message that drugs were, indeed, evil and that they were to be avoided like the devil. These seemingly apolitical movies implicitly encouraged the anti-constitutional and undemocratic efforts of the Drug Warriors to "crack down" on drug use "by any means necessary." After all, if drugs are the devil him or herself, then surely we all have a duty to do everything possible to ensure that they are never used, right? This is the insidious message that even our seemingly drug-neutral movies are spreading today in the age of Drug War censorship.

This is why Americans remain as bamboozled as ever about drugs, because they live and breathe drug prohibition with the help of constant implicit hints from our Hollywood script writers and, alas, their overseers in Washington D.C.1 Of course, the greatest bamboozlement of all is the belief that there even IS such a thing as "drugs" in the pejorative sense in which Americans use that word today2. The word "drugs" today simply means "substances that have no positive uses for anybody, anywhere, at any dose, for any reason, ever," and the fact is that there are no such substances on earth. Even "deadly" Botox has positive uses and is now being used to fight migraine headaches, something that would never have happened had we outlawed the drug based on abstract concerns about toxicity3. Even if we cannot find positive uses for a drug in our culture, we outlaw human progress when we conclude for all time, as it were, and for all people (existing and yet to come) that a drug MUST have no positive uses and cannot even be investigated for the same! But America exceeds even THAT hubris. Not happy with merely outlawing coca, we have bullied the United Nations into adopting the childish and tyrannous goal of eradicating the plant from the face of the Earth4!

Those who have ears, hear, the childish tyranny of the Drug War mentality!

I will mentPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Drug prohibition is a crime against humanity because it denies us the right to take care of our own health.
The DEA is a Schedule I agency. It has no known positive uses.
Pain patients and the depressed are totally unrecognized victims of drug prohibition.
Drug prohibition outlaws the philosophical research that William James himself told us to undertake.
Drug prohibition has resulted in hundreds of thousands of completely unnecessary deaths thanks to totally preventable drug overdoses!
The so-called opiate crisis is really a drug prohibition crisis.
Drug prohibition has 'saved' Americans from opium and coca by shunting them off onto Big Pharma meds that are FAR HARDER TO KICK THAN HEROIN.
Drug prohibition destroyed the rule of law in Latin America.
American businesses judge people, not by the color of their skin but by the contents of their digestive systems.
Some outlawed drugs grow new neurons in the brain. To refuse to use them makes us complicit in the dementia of our loved ones!
The Partnership for a Drug Free America should be put on trial for having blatantly lied to Americans in the 1980s about drugs, while using our taxpayer money to do so!
White American young people are NOT the only stakeholders in the drugs debate.
Drug prohibition has destroyed inner cities around the world.
Doctors decided that cocaine was not good for the depressed. No one asked the depressed what they thought about the drug. (Follow the money!)
We give kids drugs to improve their concentration – but if adults use drugs to concentrate, we call them names and throw them in jail.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Drugs are harmful, and there is no reason to be proud of being a drug consoomer. It’s just like social media, video games, and gooning: nothing to be proud of. But chemical drugs are even worse. They don’t just mess up your reward system; they also accelerate physical and mental decay at a rate many times faster than digital drugs do. You numb yourself because you can’t cope with this shitty world any other way. Fine. But that’s nothing to brag about. What’s even worse is that you actually spend money on your own self-destruction while your dealer gets rich off your addiction. As I said: nothing to be proud of. This is the most pathetic and disgusting board on all of Leftypol. It glorifies chemical slavery. It glorifies weakness and decay. Simply repulsive.